In Hollywood, it’s always best to be the first person to do something groundbreaking. However, this can backfire too.

First, TV cancellations. We knew it would happen eventually – and indeed last week ABC pinkslipped Charlie’s Angels. If you ever watched, you probably knew just how egregiously bad it was – with terrible dialogue and even more implausible premises. The girls were certainly beautiful, but nowadays that alone doesn’t cut it. Curious here though, is the fact that the late, great, and wildly beloved original was never known for its writing or plots, either. Yet because it was an earlier time – and because it was the first of its kind – it survived and remains a classic today. In fact, entertainment is all about firsts – and the people who arrive there fastest tend to shine, although if you let too much time go by even icons lose their appeal. Here’s what I mean…

Would you watch a new movie about Liberace?

I’m genuinely curious because the guy led a fascinating – if bizarre – life, but I’m just not certain people would find it unusual nowadays. Even though he was definitely a first.

When the news surfaced that they were making a Liberace biopic, I had thought it strange that there hadn’t been one made already. (Turns out, there was, but nobody remembers it except that Victor Garber played the world’s most successful piano player). The name of this movie is Behind The Candelabra which should tell you a little something, too. But is it too late? When it was announced that Michael Douglas would play the lead role with Matt Damon as Liberace’s much younger lover, the first thing people started to discuss was Douglas’ health and ability to star in something like this.

My issue with the Liberace movie has nothing to do with anyone’s health or suitability. It has to do with interest – and the amount of time that’s lapsed since he died. Which is significant; the man born Wladziu Valentino Liberace in a Milwaukee suburb who would go on to become the highest paid entertainer in the world for two decades died twenty-four years ago. Anyone over the age of thirty has probably seen Liberace on TV. Did you know that he sued several tabloids who alleged he was gay – and won? If you’ve ever seen Liberace with his trademark fur capes, mirrors, and diamonds you know just how spectacularly over-the-top he was – and why he was nicknamed “Mr. Showmanship”. And you also know how many fans – largely older women – flocked to see him year after year.

Here’s the problem I see with the biopic. Which is being made for HBO, by the way, and its directed by Steven Soderbergh. These two facts alone will insure it a certain viewership and level of quality. But: no matter how out there Liberace was, audiences are now completely inured to shock tactics. We have Lady Gaga, and before her we had Madonna and before her, Cher. Outlandish costumes now are simply currency – they’re no longer spectacle. So why did they wait twenty-four years to make this film? I’m not sure – but it’s going to have to be extra extra good if it’s going to capture people’s attention, because the old weird-lifestyle-crazed-fame- seeker thing doesn’t pack as much punch now. This is not to say that it won’t be a good movie, but I believe the filmmakers would have been better equipped had they jumped on the idea as soon as he died (and when more of his fans were still alive). Having said this, will this be a spectacular vehicle for Michael Douglas? Beyond a doubt. Biopics tend to be crowd-pleasers and they also tend to be awards bait, so – because it’s on HBO – here’s looking at Douglas’ fifth Emmy nomination and possible first win.

I met Liberace one night after a performance at the Rivera hotel in Las Vegas. I was working the backstage lighting board. I was pretty young then and I wasn’t impressed by his demeanor at all. I’ve lived in Vegas long enough to have met quite a few entertainers. Even a few that I liked. Robert Goulet was one. Ann Margaret was a real classy lady.
I believe the HBO film will tank and Douglas is too old to pull it off. This movie should have been made for HBO 25 years ago. I had cable then too.

The only good thing about Charlie’s Angels was that Victor Garber was the voice of Charlie (an homage to John Forsythe who was also smooth and sophisticated). As a 6 degrees of separation thing, you might be interested to know that earlier in Garber’s career he played Liberace in a made-for-TV movie and did a great job.

I loved watching the new Charlie’s Angels!! It took me to fantasy land pretending I was one of those Angels. I get so ******off everytime I really like a show and it get’s pulled. It will probably be replaced with some type of police show, they are litterly smothering us with all the police/detective/ bad guy, good guy shows, I just want to stop watching TV altogether. Just go back to reading books or playing on the computer!

I’m glad Charlie’s Angels was canceled. All the hype leading up to it…and in the end, it didn’t deliver. And YES I am SO looking forward to Michael Douglas and Matt Damon (who is long overdue for an Oscar himself)in a biopic about Liberace!

the only good thing about the original charlies angels was farrah fawcett, and these ladies can’t compare to her. the acting and show back then was terrible too… if they make a movie and cameron diaz and drew barrymore who are good actresses suck then leave charlies angels alone….

I’m sorry that Charlie’s Angels has been cancelled, as I find it entertaining. I know lots of people who enjoy it.

Being about to turn 70 in January, I was a fan of Liberace. We always watched him whenever we got the chance. I would always watch Michael Douglas, but I don’t know whether I’m willing to subscribe to HBO in order to do so.